Marshall vs. Patria AMV

[Wolfstriked 11]

So its very different then we have now and I doubt BI will implement all that.:( At the least the laser could get a few updates.

[Alistair 10]

I am anticipating response a la "Commanders hatches were welded due to balancing issues" :rolleyes:

Oh please,no. :(

It looks like its going to be added sometime in the future.I don't think they will scratch it. :)

[Wolfstriked 11]

Oh please,no. :(

It looks like its going to be added sometime in the future.I don't think they will scratch it. :)

Question is what will be added in the future.I dont understand BI's way suggesting to us to buy the alpha to help out with development and then keeping us out of everything that goes on behind the scenes.Its like why even bother.For example is the Strider....has anyone really given it a go?Its got alot of bad design decisions that just will make it a waste of development time IMO.I have found a few things that will ruin its gameplay from a commander/gunner/driver perspective and I have no idea what BI is cooking up to complete it.

First is the commanders scope is a telescoping scope but we have an unusable version that is locked at a height way below the height it needs to clear the main weapon to give commander an unobstructed view.To further compound this it is allowed to point downwards up to 18 degrees.This means you have 18degrees to see nothing but the truck top and I found myself swiveling around a few times wondering what the heck was going on.And then they decided to go with a very zoomed in view that just makes you wanna rage quit the machine and go infantry.Then due to the mouse speed slowing with zoom the feel of the scopes is terrible and requires so many travels of my mouse pad to 360 the scope its just plain ridiculous and its more rage quit.So why bother with it??Why keep us out of the dark with it all?BI if your out there and you read this message please fix this.

We dont need a telescoping commanders sight but just add extension so that its up as high as its full height as per vehicle its modeled after that allows it to clear the weapon.The downwards view angle would then make sense and give you ability to see the area around the vehicle.

The zoomed in view is another bad choice.I understand that you need to make it feel more closed in but its taken too far.Just because a game cant model the 180 deg fov a soldier has due to PC screens its no reason to nerf the optics so harsh.Try the Strider in outside view and look at a building then press optic and you are zoomed in so far that you are basically dead and no one will ever use this position.Or look at a building while in the back of the truck looking at the commanders screen and keep mental note of the FOV and then press to go to optics and notice the extreme zoom.IMO optics on vehicles should get the fov when outside and you press Rmouse to zoom in.Its tighter than normal and you have less screen real estate from the black border anyway.Its enough and yet wont force people to rage quit and actually enjoy armored vehicle combat.

Fix the key binds so that fighting vehicles make sense.For the turret turn speeds A&D can rotate turret.W&S can be dependent on the position its used in so that commander could have W as "target that" and S as another function.Gunner could have W as change thermal etc.

And Hold Rmouse to do the zoom in and click Rmouse to reset.This is important because of a bug in Arma that makes the mouse slower and slower the more you zoom in so that when fully zoomed it takes me 17 full travels of my mouse pad to 360deg turn the optic and due to the amount of zoom in with default commanders optic it takes me 4 travels of mouse pad.

Sorry there is just alot wrong and making doors that open and close is not priority IMO.Hopefully this wont just be ignored and the product ships in this state.

EDIT...just check out commander view in OA to see what a better FOV brings.When zoomed all the way out I can swing the scope around in one travel of my mouse pad and that feels so much better.And quickly turn the mouse in A2 and you will notice the optic keeps traveling a good amount before stopping.This feels great for an optic IMO.A3 also has the effect of scopes lagging slightly behind the mouse but its muted a good amount.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[Sandy* 10]

The patria in the game is an AMV Patria 360, the picture that you post is a picture of another AMV variant (turret 25 mm)

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5830/amvdenellct306zk.jpg

In both, You right the AMV series have Driver, Gunner and Commander.

This is strangely worded. The 360kW platform is the standard one used for a range of APC and IFV variants. Moreso, as the APC versions can lack a turret alltogether, it's weird to state that the AMV series have gunner/commander positions in general.

[metalcraze 290]

It looks like its going to be added sometime in the future.I don't think they will scratch it. :)

What future?

We are few months from the release and there are tons of issues still not fixed.

Instead of trying to find an excuse for BIS decisions or being in an optimistic denial about them we should try and force BIS to rethink what they are doing in the short timeframe we have left.

Of course it's hard to do when all people do is trying to over-analyze or find a logical explanation for A3 Patria. There are 3 hatches and 2 seats. This doesn't compute. Thus it's an issue.

Edited July 5, 2013 by metalcraze

[b101_uk 10]

Of course it's hard to do when all people do is trying to over-analyze or find a logical explanation for A3 Patria. There are 3 hatches and 2 seats. This doesn't compute. Thus it's an issue.

There are a few tanks with 3 hatches and 4 crew, dose this also not compute? ;)

[Wolfstriked 11]

And my post goes unnoticed.:D I gotta ask....do you guys who post here even play as commander?I see no one really cares how bad the commander position is at current implementation.If the commander position is modeled this bad in the only vehicle that has it it says to the team in a huge way that people just don't really care for commander positions to be modeled.If no one cares then it means that no one will play as commander and so why even model it.I say just remove the commander positions then BUT at least make the gunner usuable.And why argue if a tank has 3 hatches and 4 crew or if a tank has 3 hatches and 2 crew that one is wrong.That is getting away from constructive criticism and entering an area that has no relation to trying to get the best modeling done.So I ask BI to come clean with its testers and tell us what is actually gonna be modeled so we can give constructive criticism.....or the "polished release is of prime importance for Arma3 to avoid a rehash of Arma2's release" is slipping away.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[instagoat 133]

I prefer to play as Vehicle commander, rather than gunner myself.

[Wolfstriked 11]

Me too InstaGoat.

[metalcraze 290]

I love playing as a vehicle commander.

If the commander position is modeled this bad in the only vehicle that has it it says to the team in a huge way that people just don't really care for commander positions to be modeled.If no one cares then it means that no one will play as commander and so why even model it.

Here you are trying to find an explanation for commander spot missing again.

It's missing because of deathmatch balance. Plain and simple.

And why argue if a tank has 3 hatches and 4 crew or if a tank has 3 hatches and 2 crew that one is wrong.That is getting away from constructive criticism and entering an area that has no relation to trying to get the best modeling done.

Actually 3 hatches and 2 crew aka "no commander present even if he's there IRL counterpart" is the constructive criticism based on facts. The other one is a strawman.

After all it would take 2 people to crew Marid and 3 people to crew Patria and will also give Patria a better awareness (due to commander having another pair of eyes and optics) and hey that won't go well with an imaginary deathmatch player that BIS thinks is their new target audience even though deathmatch pvp is still the least played mission type no matter their efforts.

Edited July 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[CaptainObvious 95]

an imaginary deathmatch player that BIS thinks is their new target audience even though deathmatch pvp is still the least played mission type no matter their efforts.

Where is this coming from?

[Wolfstriked 11]

Oh man Metalcraze,I hope this is not true.I hate to even ask this but is this what the new game balance designer has been up to?Not many people will even play as commander in MP.This balancing going on then is a waste of time since your balancing for MP when it will most likely go unused BUT you are at same time ruining it for the SP fans who want to play as an armor commander???

[Alistair 10]

Lets see the MBT's.

If these doesn't have a commander seat,i will be uber pissed.:mad:

[Wolfstriked 11]

A little searching and I found this about the Patria AMV which shows it can be configured with just a commander and driver(As the Marid is by default) with commander manning the gun.One man turrets is becoming commonplace I guess.You can consider the gunner as the commander in the AMV/Marid APC's we have now.Probably should change the name in scroll menu to commander.And give the commander ability to also throw smoke.

crew 2-3 (commander, driver, optional gunner) and 8-12 passenger

This is for Arma 6x6 which is what the Marid is based on.

The vehicle can carry commander, driver and eight dismounts.

[twistking 204]

guys, you are hysteric. bis never ever stated, that they would shift focus of development in order to please pvp-people. when they talk about "balance" they are referring to a coherent simulation.

this was stated multiple times. i guess, they should not have called it balance, but that is all.

[dragon01 902]

Yeah, I don't see what's there to balance in ArmA III assets. Just make them act like they do in reality, then balance the missions around this. Simple enough, in my opinion, at least until you start using assets for which no data is available (or even exists...), that is.

[metalcraze 290]

guys, you are hysteric. bis never ever stated, that they would shift focus of development in order to please pvp-people. when they talk about "balance" they are referring to a coherent simulation.

this was stated multiple times. i guess, they should not have called it balance, but that is all.

Very well. Why is Patria not having a commander then?

[twistking 204]

you are arguing like an conspiracy theorist!

the patria can be configured for two man crew. it is realistic. why have they decided to put this version in the game? i don't know. there could be many reasons. perhaps they didn't know, that there are other configurations, perhaps they thought 2-man-crew would be "the future". all i'm saying is, that we have to wait, how the game turns out. you can't deduce a general development direction from such a small design-decision.

[BallSabre 1]

This is strangely worded. The 360kW platform is the standard one used for a range of APC and IFV variants. Moreso, as the APC versions can lack a turret alltogether, it's weird to state that the AMV series have gunner/commander positions in general.

Unless there is no gun at all (I have never heard of such variant except test builds) there always is a driver, gunner and commander.

The driver has to concentrate on driving, finding a path between trees and rocks, not driving over anyone, keep the vehicle steady when the gunner is trying to shoot and so on.

The gunner is trying to shoot and scan the area around the vehicle for contacts with his superior sights.

The commander has to always know where everyone in the battle is and monitor the radio while also looking around constantly and directing and synching the drivers and gunners movements. (to name a few)

Also the commander has to watch out fo the barrel on those turretless variants or he could get knocked out ;)

[instagoat 133]

The two man Patria does not even have a turret, if anything it will have an RCWS like the Stryker. The Stryker MGS, however, DOES have a three man crew (unless you´re playing Operation Arrowhead.... heh). It makes no sense not to have three crewmembers.

If this is an AI problem, then will we also see two man MBT's?

[Smurf 12]

A commander that do even less than a gunner or driver (with its only 2D view of the world) most of the times get bored really quick and it`s dropped most times. Add the lack of a proper UI (not even a ''heading' thing), FCS (targeting) to interact with the rest of the crew or an interior to get things even worst.

But I`m not saying Im against it.

[instagoat 133]

A commander that do even less than a gunner or driver (with its only 2D view of the world) most of the times get bored really quick and it`s dropped most times. Add the lack of a proper UI (not even a ''heading' thing), FCS (targeting) to interact with the rest of the crew or an interior to get things even worst.

But I`m not saying Im against it.

Commander set of controls needs to be expanded, anyway. For example, turret override and turret pointing by the commander, gun override for the commander, as well as better observation capability than the gunner, etc.

For example, irl, most modern tanks have an override for the turret on the commanders control stick. He pushes, and the tank locks the gunner out and automatically points the main gun exactly where the commander is looking with his CITV (and then he can either tell the gunner to fire, or fire himself using the trigger override). That ability is lacking completely in Arma.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11275 made a ticket asking for such controls.

Edited July 8, 2013 by InstaGoat

[Wolfstriked 11]

Yes manual override is needed.When you want gunner to target the AT which you have recognized its faster to override the weapon and quick kill the threat instead of pointing at location and pressing TAB and then waiting for gunner to do his own recognition.But that is for vehicles with commander position modeled.I think 2 man crew is enough when fighting in very flat open lands where the ability to be flanked is minimized.But when you enter mountain terrain or inner city then its suicide and I would not wanna be in the vehicle.And for the people that don't believe the AMV can come in a 2 man crew version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV

As for better observation for commander over the gunner is a big one for me.Firstly,for some reason the Strider commander position is very zoomed in while the gunner position is zoomed out.IMO all the scopes should be to the FOV of the car gunner positions.It was a wider FOV for commander position in Arma2 and coincidentally that is the only position where you can play in first person.Just try to steer the vehicle around from commanders position in Strider and then command from gunner position in Strider.

If the reason for narrowing the FOV to unplayable levels is to force a penalty to balance the vehicle weapons its just wrong as they actually are efficient killing machines and should just be spawned at low levels as they are in real life.Plus the two black bars on the sides reduce the viewable area and when you start fighting on inclines etc its even more disorienting.The zoomed in FOV just ruins the ability to fight effectively with the vehicles where they actually feel clunky and Arma3 should not be clunky.

The Arma3's APC's have a zoomed in gunner view which is its only eyes to outside when turned in...........meaning people will just play in 3rd person.What balancing is that where you force people to play in 3rd person?They need to have same FOV as the car gunner positions and IMO the square look as they are aimed by looking at LCD screens.Truth be told I think even larger FOV would be better as the feel of looking in Arma2's vehicles is superior due to slightly larger FOV.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[BallSabre 1]

The two man Patria does not even have a turret, if anything it will have an RCWS like the Stryker. The Stryker MGS, however, DOES have a three man crew (unless you´re playing Operation Arrowhead.... heh). It makes no sense not to have three crewmembers.

If this is an AI problem, then will we also see two man MBT's?

Seriously, what do you mean two man version... We are talking about one of the most modular vehicles that exist today, even more so than that horrible striker. There might be some weird two man versions but trust me when I say that the patria AMV hull is built for a tree man grew, the driver and gunner have their own space that cant be used for much else and the commander has his dedicated radios and c&c equipment so he can command the passengers easily aswell.

I don't know if you guys appriciate just how modular this thing is. Its a days work tops for the TREE man crew to change the armor thinkness of the WHOLE vehicle. Trust me, been there done that.

Here is some porn of some of the versions that have been made/are in testing.

http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/8169aa80450ba1d898e8f92d421d6b7b/amv+xa-360.jpg?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=8169aa80450ba1d898e8f92d421d6b7b (3561 kB)

http://www.forte.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/LAND_Patria_AMV_w_RCWS-30_lg.jpg (114 kB)

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_AMOS_on_Patria_AMV_lg.jpg (258 kB)

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 ----------

And for the people that don't believe the AMV can come in a 2 man crew version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV

Sorry but what has wikipedia done to become the most reliable source of information, check the finnish version of that page and you will see that the commander is not infact listed as optional and seeing as the particular vehicle is actually finnish made that might be more believable.

Although the commander position is almost useless in arma when using bots (since the driver cant drive wiht any reliability) that is no reason for it to be taken out of the game.

I seriously hope these are place holders and not infact the finished products.

Also, what is with these ammo counts, it looks like they are going to go shoot a few rounds on the shooting range and I'm not even choking, that is the avarage amount of ammo given when going to the shooting range, actual battle armament includes 500+ rounds for all vehicles with HMGs, and that is just when talking about a light and fast incursion wiht no long time engagements planned.

[Damian90 697]

Well my only suggestion would be to increase ammunition quantity in vehicles, both for main armament and coaxial machine gun, especially for the machine gun, approx 1200 rounds is just a single belt ready to use, in many vehicles there are several ammo boxes inside.

A quick example from previous ArmA, the M1 tank have only 1200 rounds for coax, while in reality it can hold from 11400 do 12000 rounds for coax and loader mahinge guns + 1000 rounds for TC HMG.

Same for APC's and IFV's like Marshal in ArmA3.